Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation

Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation by Edward L. Glaeser and David Cutler

I wanted to like this book. The general idea and the conclusions are great. However, the execution just leaves something to desire. The authors come from different political perspectives and find issue with the way things are tackled politically. We need to get long term solutions to the big problems rather than just short term crowd pleasers. Policing is an example. On one side you have "defund the police". They are seeking to limit the harm that people experience due to police violence and excessive incarceration. On the other side you have "tough on crime" and "three strikes" policies aiming to prevent people from being harmed by crimes. People with lower incomes and minorities are often the most likely to be incarcerated and the most likely to be victim of crimes. Rather than a zero sum of "tough on crime" vs. "defund the police" we need to improve policing to reduce crime and incarceration. This does not bring itself to easy soundbites, but will provide a better solution. We need to address similar areas of education and health. Income, housing availability and costs are also related. Zoning has created havoc on the United States as a whole. Previously, people would migrate from poor areas to areas with opportunity, gradually leading to an equalization. Now the areas with opportunity are so expensive that migration is limited. The high cost of housing and limited availability makes it difficult for people to relocate there. A combination of the car and end-runs around racial integration have wreaked havoc on our cities. The poor bear the biggest burden of these changes. Despite these issues, people still desire to live in these cities. 

The Death and Life of Great American Cities

The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs

Reading this book is so depressing. The author pointed out the flaws in the suburban planning more than a half century ago. And what has happened since then? Most of the US has been developed with the same bad planning. Central planning. Parking lots. Separation of concerns. Now there has finally been a little bit of observation that some of these things were bad. Why did it take so long? Why did we destroy actual communities earlier on? Now with phones and devices we are even more separated. Maybe that has been the final nudge that we need to realize that we want some community in our physical life.

Many times cities are "killed" rather than suffer natural deaths. Planners confuse "density" with "overcrowding". High density areas are often very successful, especially if people care. Neighbors will "self-police" to ensure everyone meets standards. People can also have a degree of anonymity in cities that they cannot in small towns. They can be private, yet still part of a tight-knit urban community.

The author criticizes the "garden city" and other movements that would likely be considered "new urbanism" today. Instead, she advocates pure urbanism. Keep big sidewalks for people to travel, play and spend their time. Let cities have many different concerns together. She spends some time looking at alternatives to public housing. Her position would look much more libertarian, with the government less involved than they are now. One key point is that people would still be able to live in the community once they earn too much to qualify. (Would this change incentives to hide income?) There seem to be some flaws, though she admits that it is a starting point and should be revised as needed. in some places, we do allow people to remain after earning more. There are attempts to have more "mixed income housing". However, the entire public housing system still suffers many of the same problems that the author identified in the the early 1960s. 

New Visions for Metropolitan America

New Visions for Metropolitan America by Anthony Downs

The car-centric low-density suburban pattern has dominated American development since the end of World War II. New suburbs have autonomy and encourage comercial, retail and housing development within their boundaries. They enforce ever stricter zoning and building codes to provide higher-quality housing. The poor are priced out of new suburbs and find themselves confined to older inner-city developments of lower quality. Eventually, some of the more well-to-do inner-city residents can migrate to older inner-ring suburbs that have fallen out of favor, however, most remain confined to to the inner ghetto. The inner city often ends up a high poverty, high crime area, with few working class jobs, yet it still supports regional immenties. The disparate pattern of development also results in increased car-centric commute times.

The solutions proposed in the book seek to improve the condition of everyone in the metropolitan area. Regional bodies and regulation will help everyone in the metropolitan area. Increasing density will allow for more affordable housing and reduced commute times. Greenbelts and growth boundaries will help improve the conditions of everyone. Getting there is the challenge. People like having responsive, small scale governments. Government officials like to showcase short term improvements. There is little patience for improvements that take a long time to show results in the long term, especially if they involve sacrifices.

The author has identified many of the challenges to improve the quality of metropolitan areas. Getting a workable solution is a challenge. Even the best set plans can be subverted by inertia and vested interests. It is interesting that in passing he mentions societies decision to turn the mentally ill out in society. That, together with drug epidemics and high housing costs has produced a homeless crisis. That has attracted immediate concern. Alas, it seems most people are eager to throw lots of money at housing authorities and hope it goes away. Nobody wants to address the root causes (especially the housing authorities). It seems society has tried to opt for the "most expensive" solution for housing, and fumbling with it.  

On transportation, we have a mixed result. We are still building far-flung suburbs and spending money to expand roads. However, we are spending billions of dollars on new public transportation infrastructure. It looks good and produces plenty of pork, but not necessarily improvements. In Seattle, Sound Transit is a government agency responsible for light rail and longer-distance buses. Most of the board is made up primarily of local officials. There is also incredible attention to geographical equity. However, the agency is required to get local approval for all work. This allows local suburbs to extract demands from the transit agency. The transit agency has become a money pot that has provided road improvements, parking garages and other car-centric infrastructure. Local governments have specifically fought rail alignments near high density areas due to perceived impacts. Instead, much of the rail line has been near suburban freeways with limited density (or even potential density.) It may be succeeding now. Is this the first step in the improved metropolitan development, or will this be the cautionary case that will prevent the positive long-term goal?

The Shenzhen Experiment: The Story of China’s Instant City

The Shenzhen Experiment: The Story of China’s Instant City by Juan Du

Shenzhen seemingly rose up from a small fishing village to a 10 million person city in a few decades. While the actual growth is not quite as extreme as that, it has been a positive example of reforms and special economic zones.

The area now occupied by Shenzhen has had settlements dating back millenia. There were trading towns, farmers and a vibrant shellfish industry. The area was located next to Hong Kong, with many farmers having farms spanning the border between China and Hong Kong. There was significant immigration across the border, especially after the communist revolution. Eventually, the government decided to clamp down and institute strict border crossings.

Deng Xiaoping had encouraged economic reforms in the Shenzhen area. There seemed to be a "Why can't we do it as good as Hong Kong?" mentality involved. Shenzhen was set up as a special economic zone. The local government was given a greater degree of autonomy and freedom to implement and reform economic policy. Business from throughout China and other areas (such as Hong Kong) were encouraged to participate in development. The region was able to put up buildings quickly. Large number of Chinese peoples migrated to Shenzhen (both legally and illegally).

The people already living there responded in various ways. Many converted their homes into "peasant housing" walkup approaching 10 stories high. These areas were often later demolished in favor of "luxury units" - which would allow the long-termers to live there and collect rents. The city had a goal of no slums. However, the "slums" provided a critical housing need for those migrants without official residency status.

The book covers an interesting history. However, the writing could use improvement. It meanders back and forth in time and place and repeats itself. It can be difficult to grasp a complete narrative. Shenzhen did seem to come out of nowhere and achieve great success. It has had some problems. It would be great to have some more detailed analysis.

Neighborhoods and Urban Development

Neighborhoods and Urban Development by Anthony Downs

We all live in neighborhoods, yet defining one could be a challenge. With smaller towns, the neighborhood is coterminous with the community boundary. Larger cities often have a large number of neighborhoods. These may have overlapping boundaries. The neighborhood is often where people live and participate in some acts of social life. There may or may not be a responding council or government entity. The author acknowledges the ambiguity of the term neighborhood. However, we can generally understand what one is and what we can expect from it.

The book was written nearly a half-century ago. Some of the details have changed, but the general process and challenge remain. Neighborhood undergo a life-cycle. The neighborhood is born of new development. It is generally well-maintained at first. Later it may fall on harder times. It is not the newest part of the metro area. It might experience a rebirth and become the trendy new area. Or more likely it moves down the income ladder. Most neighborhoods will stay here. Some neighborhoods will fall precipitously. Rents don't cover maintenance. Property tax becomes a burden for homeowners. The building stock is crumbling. It may be abandoned. For many, (especially frame houses), the best solution is to bulldoze it. There may be a chance to redevelop, but it is hard.

Race poses some interesting twists. Often, a neighborhood will not change due to "flight", but instead due to lack of white replacement. Neighborhoods have a common rate of regular turnover when people move in an out each year.  A homogenous neighborhood will see similar people replacing those that move out. However, after a few people of a different group move in, the next move ins are more likely to be from the minority than the original group. As more natural move outs occur, the neighborhood pivots to a new minority. The book gives the example of white/black switch, but this is seen in other racial or ethnic groups.

Also interesting is the display of black/white income and location. The highest income white areas are furthest from the white areas. Then income goes steadily lower until the integration zone is reach. Then a higher income black zone starts that steadily decreases. The black zone has a higher income than the adjacent white zone. (This is similar to what I have observed in Chicago.) However, the pioneer black homeowners often don't capture the premium. They pay more for the house in the transitioning neighborhoods. Some mixed neighborhoods do remain, but it often requires external forces to keep them integrated. The book gives an example of building racial quotas. Other cases may be places like Hyde Park in Chicago. The neighborhood is home to a black well-to-do (such as Obama). The University helps to balance it out with a regular influx of students and professors of other races. 

Government intervention has contributed to the hard times of the central city. The government helps subsidize new roads, sewers and buildings, yet does little to help for the maintenance of what already exists. The natural migration leaves the central city with some of the poorest neighborhoods and most needy population. It also maintains many of the region-wide amenities (sports stadiums, parks, concert venues, etc.) The city often has higher tax burdens. 

The poorest people also suffer from lack of housing. Building codes set a floor on quality and size of housing. This often prices people out. of even the cheapest housing. To provide housing, cities must subsidized housing for the lowest income residents or let them live in "substandard" housing (often through selective code enforcement.) Suburbs will often add even more requirements, making housing even more unaffordable.

The book has a very straightforward look at neighborhoods and their conditions. It is not afraid to tell things as they are and present solutions from different sides. Often the problem can come from opposite directions, as can the solution. It is important to be open to different options. Injecting huge sums of money may not help if it doesn't lead to a turn around of the underlying issues. On the other hand, sometimes just talking about a policy can be enough to turn things around. Neighborhoods are complex.

Street Trees of Seattle

Street Trees of Seattle: An Illustrated Walking Guide by Taha Ebrahimi

During the Covid-19 pandemic, people took to more individual outdoor pursuits in their neighborhoods. The author of this book decided to explore street trees. The book explores trees in a few different neighborhoods. Each neighborhood has a "focus" tree with some other trees to explore. One minor fault is that the map of Seattle omits the northern part of the city. (Even though there are no trees shown there, the map could at least show the neighborhoods!) There is some interesting history, as well as a reference to the millenia's old "tree" in Utah.

The Ecological Design and Planning Reader

The Ecological Design and Planning Reader by Forster O. Ndubisi

This is a collection of essays on "Ecological Design." The general idea is sound. We should pay attention to the ecology and consider our development as just one part of the ecosystem. The implementation is where issues come. In one essay, it is mentioned that no place has fully implemented "smart growth". Instead, interested parties have just picked the pieces that interest them. Similar issues can be seen in other ecological developments. The Woodlands Texas is given as an example. Natural storm systems are in place with a large park area. This is an environmental win in one area. However, it also involved cutting down forest for large lot suburban development. Large roads criss cross the area, with many cul-de-sacs preventing alternate travel. Freeway travel is the primary way to and from the area. A large amount of land is used and will be difficult to return to natural conditions.

Problems occur in other areas of attempted ecological development. A golf course may maintain part of the original ecosystem. But it also requires a large amount of built up space. A subdivision may follow the contours of the land, but be car centric with huge lots. Is something ecological if it is just a playground for the rich? Once land is allocated for urban or suburban uses, it is almost impossible to get it back to a state of nature. Even "smart" development could be negative if it is not done in a scalable way. Our current political boundaries were set in the "foot and horse" travel era, and don't work well for the car era. It is too easy to jump to a different city or county to sidestep any building requirement.

Americans Against the City: Anti-Urbanism in the Twentieth Century

Americans Against the City: Anti-Urbanism in the Twentieth Century by Steven Conn

Cities grew large in America as part of the industrial revolution. Dense groups of immigrants lived in substandard conditions in these crime and disease-ridden cities. This was abhorrent to earlier migrants who prized individuality and independence. Reformers attacked cities and their conditions. There was a great deal of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Zoning and code requirements helped clean up the bad conditions, but ended up spreading them out. Suburbs were inspired by small towns. Various movements attempted to create community in car-friendly environment. "Urban renewal" knocked down blocks of urban housing. 

Even cities that did not want to take money for urban renewal could use highway construction money to destroy less-desirable neighborhoods. The federal government paid 90% of the cost of interstate construction. However, states needed to significantly increase the amount they spent on highways to cover their 10%. These highways would bypass small towns, helping to bring chain stores to the periphery and hurting the downtown businesses. In the cities, the roadways would destroy inner-city neighborhoods, and also hurt the urban environment. 

Urban living has had a bit of a revival recently. There is a desire for community. However, there is also a desire for independence. Housing projects were a big failure. Will new approaches work better?

Order without Design: How Markets Shape Cities

Order without Design: How Markets Shape Cities by Alain Bertaud

Urban planners try to guide cities in certain directions.  Economists look at how markets respond and build cities. The two groups don't often talk, and they don't often speak the same language. This is a problem. Planners will often try to "encourage" something they seem desirable. If it is not economically desirable, developers will do just enough to meet the letter of the regulation, without really providing the benefit. An example is given of plazas in front of buildings in New York. One building built a nice plaza on their own. Then the city gave encouragement to others. They built plazas that were not functional and barely usable.

Housing is an area that cities struggle with. Regulations have been put in place to increase the quality of housing. This has in turn made housing more expensive. Then regulations were put in place to provide for subsidized housing. There is not nearly enough housing for those that want it, so only a lucky few win the lottery for the housing. Those that do get it are reluctant to leave, even if the housing is not longer appropriate for them. Some will illegally sublease their apartments in order to produce cash. Cities try to regulate themselves out of housing crisis that they have got themselves in by regulation. Trusting the markets would be a better use.

Transportation is also a struggle. If more space is available for transportation, travel times are reduced. However, the space allocated for spacing reduces space for the city and thus requires longer travel distances. Different means of transportation can move people at different rates. Different city profiles impact how efficiently they move. Mopeds often become popular in developing countries. They can move fast with little effort and take little space. Cars add comfort, but use significantly more space. Underground railroads create bonus space by moving the transportation underground.

Cities develop primarily in response to economic cues. Silicon Valley was not planned, but developed a vibrant innovative economy in part because cities did not get in the way. Attempts to legislate innovation have often failed. Restrictions on development and "incentives" result in less-economically desirable development. What is the best approach to produce a desirable city?

The Lies of the Land: Seeing Rural America for What It Is―and Isn’t

The Lies of the Land: Seeing Rural America for What It Is―and Isn’t by Steven Conn

After World War II, the population of central cities declined while the suburbs grew. However, the growth of the suburbs vastly eclipsed the loss in the cities. Much of this extra population consisted of people leaving rural areas. In some cases it may have been forced upon them as suburban areas encroached on farmland. In other cases, it was a more conscious decision. They sought more opportunities, yet didn't want to go all the way to the city.

In America, rural living represents many of the core tenants of individuality. However, rural living rarely lives up to the "ideal".  People also desire many of the resources of the cities. Suburbs are often the "compromise". Today, rural areas tend to be poor. Many "food deserts" appear in the areas of food production. Medical care and even education may be missing or require long distant travel. Retail in general is missing. Dollar stores are the most recent retail area that has taken to rural and small town areas. They are the latest in the series of "downtown dominators", after 5 and dime and Wal-Mart/K-Mart type stores. 

The explores the definition of what "rural" is. It can be more of a state of mind than an actual location. "Not city" may be the key part of it. In then wanders into various physical and economic characteristics. It is a bit unfocussed, but interesting.

Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream

Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck

While walking around listening to this book, I couldn't help but get mad. I was in older neighborhood in Seattle that would probably be in the 99th percentile of "least suburban blah". Yet, there was still ample evidence of suburban destruction. Streets were wider than needed. There was use segregation, too much space for cars and areas without pedestrian crossings. I passed the old library building in a mixed urban area and was reminded that the new library is a few blocks away on a larger, more "blah" piece of land. (It is still in a pedestrian friendly area - just not as appealing.) The school district has been busy building "mega schools" and talking about shutting down and consolidating schools. I also passed people using electric scooters on the sidewalk. Sure, these are better than cars, but they are impinging on people space, not car space.

The book focuses on the pitfalls of suburbanization and the good parts from Congress of New Urbanism. Suburbanization has been heavily influenced by government policy. It is based heavily on car transport and is not scalable. In the past, developers were revered. Today they are villainized. New development brings in more traffic and more conflict for scarce resources. In the past, development would include building up of many public goods. New development would provide new neighborhoods to walk in, new travel routes and new public amenities. Now, development is mostly an isolated subdivision. These cars get funelled on to existing streets increasing traffic. They crowd the existing mega-schools. It is a negative, not a positive.

It is a depressingly huge uphill battle to get liveable walkable communities. People don't want their subdivision connected to others. Developers follow the generic process. They want to build their ultra-large mass-produced houses on needlessly winding streets. City code requires abundant parking spaces and shuns mixed use. Economies of scale in production encourage more of this development. This is more expensive in the long run. However, in the long run, most of these residents will have moved out to the next ring of suburbs and the inner ring will be left to decay. 

Attempts to remedy the problems of suburbanization often focus on the periphery without addressing the true concern. Transit systems are built with big park and ride lots. Why take transit if you are already driving part of the way? Electric cars are treated as a solution to pollution, but fail to address the big problem of all the resources they require to build and drive on.  Small pedestrian friendly parts of town are built, but are primarily accessed by driving from remote subdivisions. Many of the more livable areas could not be built today because they are against the codes. Unsustainable American subdivisions are also spreading throughout the world. How can we fight against people's greed and laziness to actually build something sustainable and livable?

The Urban Transportation Problem

The Urban Transportation Problem by J.R. Meyer, J. F. Kain, M. Wohl

This study of urban transportation was written in 1965 and funding in part by the Ford Foundation. It was written at the heyday of "cars and freeways are great era." The book is filled with numbers and equations to evaluate different transportation means. It does attempt to provide a balanced analysis, but, alas, it was a product of its time and misses out on areas that seem obvious. 

The book evaluated development patterns. People and businesses were moving to peripheral suburban areas. As a whole, people would live close to where they worked, but there were some that would commute further - especially to the central business district. The book took the assumption that people would want to live where there was more land, without looking at the significant subsidies (especially in the highway system and infrastructure) that enabled them to live there. The authors did look at whether urban or rural drivers "pay there way" with gas taxes. However, the assumption was that gas taxes should be strictly used for highways, while local roads should be covered by local property taxes. Alas, this missed out on the significant impact that freeway drives would have on local roads, from requiring excess capacity to limiting other non-car movements. 

There was one chart showing increased traffic in streets with freeway interchanges. However, this was in the context of showing that the were anomalies compared to other streets that lost traffic. Even back then, Darrell Ward wrote about "los angeles a classic example" (of induced demand) in Metropolitan Transportation January 1962. Alas, the authors of this book work the refute the argument by showing that parallel streets (such as Figueroa and Sunset lost traffic volume when freeways were built.)  I tried to look up the current volumes, but couldn't find anything conclusive. It is unclear what segments they were referring to, and renaming of sections further complicates things. I did find that Sunset is now highly congested with volume exceeding design capacity. The related freeways are also carrying many times more volume than previously - and highly congested.  The book included a table comparing travel times in 1936 with those post-freeway in the 1950s and 1960. I did some midday Google map lookups. It wasn't all negative. In general the routes today are about a minute faster than they were in 1936 - if you take the optimal google route. Most all of them also had routes that were slower than 1936. Seems that Ward does get the last laugh.

The book analyzed the decrease in central business district trips by cities with built up rail infrastructure. It found that the trains did not help reduce the hemorrhaging. What was missed was the impact of the freeways. A city with a built up transit network would likely be very densely populated. Building freeways would eliminate significant numbers of homes, workplaces and other buildings. Even if only 1.6% of land area were used for a freeway, this would be very significant in the built environment.  The additional support for cars (parking garages, larger roads, etc.) would further cause damage.  The book also looks at potential improvements with urban renewal, but does caveat that many projects seem to have a plan for decreased density. Alas, we know that urban renewal did not turn out so well. It reduced density in built up areas, sometimes improving housing stock, but in other cases just destroying it. 

The book has a general assumption that people can easily store their cars and that cars will just be able to use the area. Alas, this has come at great expense. Car usage has reduced capacity and slowed travel for non-car users. Freeways have sliced through neighborhoods, cutting off access, and making it challenging to walk or bike across interchanges. Streets become busier as cars move to access freeways. More frequent and longer trips are made by cars, requiring more space to move cars quickly. The improved car movement speed is frequently implemented to the detriment of other road users. Car subsidies continued, leading to more cars and decreased transit quality and even more cars.

It was interesting to see the matter-of-fact ways that racial segregation was looked at. It was assumed that more black people would seek suburban housing if they could. However, at the time, they typically chose to live in close in areas that had lower transportation costs. A similar dwelling unit would be more expensive in these areas, yet they could live in smaller units that were not available in other areas and save costs. Alas, the "if they could" part has played out, with many central cities slowly losing their black population. 

The book is filled with equations looking at different means to transport people to the central cities. Express bus service comes out highly in terms of speed and cost. Yet, it seems to never work well. The authors do note that people have a preference for rail. They also are a little too concerned with downtown distribution. People don't mind walking. Spending more effort making the walking environment better would be better than improving car access.

At the end, the book looks towards "future technology". Autonomous cars and "small cars" are proposed as well as congestion tolling. Small have a huge benefit with minimal cost, yet we have spun in the opposite direction. For busses, the authors propose a form of bus rapid transit with a dedicated freeway bus lane, queue-skip entrance ramps, multi-door loading, platforms and the like. Much has been implemented in some extent. The authors identify that a dedicated lane would provide the greatest overall increase in system performance, but would also leave unused capacity (that would be alienated to drivers.) Alas, we have ended up with a "half-way" bus system. There are bus lanes, but they are often clogged with cars turning or just being bad. Buses may use carpool lanes on freeways, but rarely dedicated bus lanes. They also mention electronic toll collection and adaptive signals.

It is interesting to see some of the other ideas and concerns. Air conditioning was not widespread in vehicles, and seemed to be a possible innovation. Automated fare collection was discussed, but there were concerns about labor displacement. Hydrofoils and Monorails looked like the rage, but had shortcomings. A continuously running rail loop that would drop off cars was proposed - this seems to have potential, but has never appeared. 

The book has some interesting insights on cost on subsidies. Subsidizing public transit is essentially subsidizing land development in the suburbs. Congestion on freeways is a form of income distribution from wealthy (who value time more) to the poor. Tolls, especially variable tolls would be best for managing demand, but are politically challenging. When people value transit at different amounts, price discrimination would allow it to run profitably, but equal prices would require a subsidy.

The authors reiterate that subsidizing long-haul public transportation is in essence giving subsidies for people to live in the distant suburbs. They point out that regulation often leads to decrease in quality and ridership, and that less regulation may be preferable to subsidies. (Of course, back then, there still were private transit operators and passenger railroads.) Subsidies and regulation are used to push transit in a direction, which may not be optimal. We have seen what happened with freeways and zoning and car dominance. We have trouble seeing far enough into the future for solutions.  One quick win deregulation proposed was eliminating taxi franchises. They predicted Uber and Lyft a half-century early. 

As for countering the negative of cars, they suggest paying for filters (catalytic converters?) or even considering electric cars once storage capacity is available. This view seems to be that the emissions are the only problems with cars. If only that were so. They also brush off speculation that different transit types produce different styles of development. Perhaps they have never seen urban development near rail stops compared to strip development around freeway interchanges. 

When looking at the book as a whole, it is interesting how little has changed in the areas analyzed. Most of the "improvements" we have seen in the past half century were predicted. There have also been a plethora of rail projects in the US. However, most have served primarily to bring suburbanites to the central city. Many run next to freeways. They could have been much more cheaply implemented by dedicating one freeway lane to buses. However, as the authors observed, people love transit projects - but would like somebody else to ride the transit. Replacing a freeway lane with a dedicated bus lane would improve overall system performance, but would upset drivers with the "wasted space". One area that was totally missed by the authors was allocation of street space to pedestrians and cyclists. Today there is finally an acknowledgement that transportation doesn't have to involve motor vehicles.

Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States

Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States by Kenneth T. Jackson 

(Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabgrass_Frontier)

The United States began a gradual process towards suburbanization. Initially, the country was primarily rural, with minimal urban population. As cities grew, in part due to the industrial revolution, all tended to live close together. Trains and other transportation enabled people to move out from the crowded cities to suburban area. These cities were usually "dots" on the rail line, with houses built within walking distance of the train line. Other forms of transportation, such as cable cars, horse cars and ferries expanded the areas where people could live. However, even the suburbs would mirror urban living, but at a distance. Grid patterns were the common layout pattern.

The "city beautiful" movement started launching suburbs that would have "curved lines" and be integrated more into nature. Soon the car came about and suburbs were built with the expectation of automobile use. Uses were segregated. There was a "home zone" and a "work zone". 

The most depressing part of housing development was the government involvement. It went into high gear during the Great Depression. The government helped encourage loans. However, the devil was in the details. They wanted to ensure loans were rapid, so they mapped neighborhoods by category. To be in the ideal category, the neighborhood had to be white and suburban. Cities ended paying to subsidize racist car-centric suburbs.

Even worse was the government's attempts to provide public housing. A requirement for funding was that an equivalent amount of slums were cleared. A local housing authority must also be set up to provide the housing. While it would have been easy to build vast amounts of public housing in greenfield suburbs, the suburban areas did not want it, leaving most in the cities. Initially the housing was meant to be primarily temporary abodes for the working poor. However, restrictions were lifted, leaving the housing primarily the abode of the most impoverished. In the end, poverty was concentrated in central cities with no real increase in housing stock. The huge amount that the US government spent on mortgage tax breaks has probably been a net loss. 

The government spent huge amounts of money building the interstate highway system, while expecting mass transit and railroads to mostly pay their way.  Zoning regulations also come to enforce separation of responsibility and benefit cars.  The author presents the facts of government government and then tries to divert the blame, saying that people had wanted it. However, the facts show a policy that could hardly have been planed better to destroy cities, favor suburban sprawl and force people into cars. Other countries marvel at the lack of public housing and the dedication of gas tax revenue to highway constructions. Alas, the US government has got what it deserved. 

In the end, the author made a few predictions that seemed somewhat prescient. One prediction was that working from home was not really feasible. When this was written in the mid-1980s, the technology for working from home was crude at best. Internet connectivity would primarily be via a modem with speeds in bits per seconds. Coworker interaction would be with a telephone. Even today, with always-on gigabit home internet, video conference and chat, companies are still pushing for in-person presence. Remote work is now more possible, but there is still a desire for in-person connectivity. Another prediction is that there would be a greater desire for urban living. This seems to have played out as expected. Many cities reversed years of population decline to see population gains in the 2000s. Even suburbs have become more urban in character. While there still are new sprawl subdivisions, there is a much more balanced makeup of new development. There are concerns about energy use, and an acknowledgement that dense housing, non-car transit and other features help in reducing excess energy use and carbon emissions.

 

Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America

Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America by Conor Dougherty

Housing has become too expensive. Zoning regulations make building difficult. Many people are living on the streets because there is no place they can afford to live. What should we do? Golden Gates focuses on attempts in San Francisco and California to improve the housing situation.

San Francisco is an extremely liberal city with some of the most expensive housing in the country. People want to move to the city for the many job opportunities. When this happened in the per-War age, cities such as Chicago and New York built up huge tracts fo dense housing. Alas, it is more challenging in San Francisco today. The different types of liberals often work against each other to prevent new housing. Preservationists want to keep the historic character of neighborhoods. They may mention fears of "gentrification" to stymie development. Housing advocates will sometimes fight against anything that is not 100% affordable housing. Environmentalists fear the environmental impacts of new housing. Those supporting new housing are typically the developers and unions that benefit from the act of construction. The voice of "future residents" are almost never heard.

Some people have stepped in to start to advocate for growth. Any development can be good. The difficulty of building housing makes developers concentrate on high end housing. Making development easier would allow for greater diversity in development. The high end of today is what will be the lower priced housing in the future. 

Rent control may benefit current renters, but it often has negative impacts on supply and future renters.

One issue is that today housing is viewed as an investment, not just a place to live. Thus people are more concerned with the impacts on property values. We have many subsidies for buyers, yet it is becoming increasingly difficult to buy.

California has gone through a few different phases of development. In the post-war era, the state focussed on building. Many cities and suburbs sprang up on vacant land with the state helping with the infrastructure (such as water projects.) Then things turned and zoning laws discouraged development. Now there is a shift to encourage more development in part by taking some control away form communities.

The book details stories of fights for housing legislation, as well as the advocacy for San Francisco development and the fight to support apartments in tony Lafayette. the stories combine to show a picture of what can be done to help with housing in the near future. However, the author is cautious to note that there have been many "solutions" that have not panned out. We will see what the future holds now.

Too High and Too Steep: Reshaping Seattle’s Topography

Too High and Too Steep: Reshaping Seattle’s Topography by David B. Williams

Seattle's Mohai museum has 3d model of Seattle where you can hit to "bring down" the changes in the city's topography. Land has been reclaimed from many areas, especially along the Duwamish. Water has also been extended via the ship canal to connect Lake Washington to the ocean. These are some impressive engineering accomplishments. This book details the various changes along with the process and people behind them.

The book begins with a history of how Seattle was shaped in the first place. Volcanos, earthquakes and glaciers all have played important roles in shaping the Seattle we know. The Duwamish and other tribes have occupied the area for some time and have caused some minor changes in the landscape (mostly from coastal "garbage dumps") The big changes came with the white settlers and especially transportation. They wanted a railroad. They needed a way for it to get places. Thus they built trestles over tideflats.  Why not fill in the tideflats to get more land and make it easier? And it was done. Hills seemed to impede the city. Why not use mining experience to sluice one away. Done! A canal? Sure. There were plans for more flattening, but they eventually fell by the wayside.

The great topographical engineering era ended with the great depression. The economic benefit of flattening ended up not being as great as expected, and the distance from water may have made it more difficult to sluice other hills. The dominance of the car also changed the calculus. Cars were not as impeded by topography, and thus instead of flattening hills, the new change was to demolish neighborhoods to make way for highways. A tunnel might by used to get around some steep spots. 

The author has gone out to identify many of the areas where great projects have taken place. He has traveled to many of the modern places that have been significantly impacted by this geo-engineering efforts. This would make for a nice "tour" of Seattle.

Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed

Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott

Humans have this bad habit of using science to reduce complex systems to individual components. They then optimize the individual system of interest. This seems to provide positive results in the short run, but reduces resiliency in the system, leading to long term issues. 

The concept of "scientific forestry" was an early attempt to optimize nature. Why have all these other plants in the forest, when we just care about certain trees? These trees were planted in an orderly fashion. That made it easy to manage. The elimination of other growth contributed to the organization and management. Alas, these other organisms also contributed to the growth of the forest. While the scientific forest provided short term benefit, the forests did not last. It was much more susceptible to challenges, from pests to inclement weather. 

Governments have tried a similar approach with people. Cities like Brazilia were planned to be perfectly organized. People were grouped in certain areas with schools in fixed locations. Different uses were separated, with large roads to allow people to quickly move around in cars. People would live in apartments, and there would be no slums. It would be a totally optimized, totally drab city. Alas, this is not how people wanted to live. The slums also came to provide the need for additional housing. Many "planned" developments suffer from similar problems. There are good intentions from government to provide housing or other benefits. However, by restricting other uses, they eliminate the other aspects of a city that make it livable.

Governments attempt at mandating improvements in agriculture have met with similar disastrous outcomes. Communist collectivization in China and the Soviet Union attempted to implement what was "best". Alas, these top down mandates led to mass starvation. Attempts in Africa to improve agricultural performance with uniform approaches failed to take into account the needs of individuals. The result was similarly not good. Even in the US, government incentives have led to implementation of these standard monocrops.

A uniformly organized society is easy for a government to manage. States encourage standardization and organization to help with their ability to government. They can also often see some short term gains, while the long term resiliency is a problem for someone else. 

Finding old houses in Seattle

 Where are the old houses in Seattle?

First, what were the populations

How many people were living in Seattle?

4568

Year	Seattle	Ballard	King County
1860	188		302
1870	1151		2120
1880	3533		6910
1890	42837	1636	63989
1900	80671	4568	110053
1910	237194		284638
1920	315312		389273

The tricky part is understanding what the population represents. The Annexation map shows a steady increase in size of the city. The one below shows early annexations (up to 1938). A huge chunk of north Seattle (up to 130th) was annexed later. 

For the purpose of old houses, there were 80,671 people living in Seattle in 1900. However, the city limits then were much smaller than they are now. The US Census has populations of individual precincts in King County in 1890 and 1900. What are those precincts? A census site links some together. I'll just guess and say there were about 50,000 people living in the modern Seattle city limits in 1890.

To make things interesting, there was the Seattle Fire in 1889. This destroyed much of the central business district. It also led to a rapid increase in population as the city was rebuilt. I'll guess that a great deal of the pre-1889 buildings were destroyed. There was probably a lot of "get things done quickly" mentality for housing immediately after the fire. I doubt there would be much of that housing that would last. However, I would expect to find a few bits of 1890s housing still around. The areas that were later annexed would probably have some housing.

By 1900, Seattle had 80,671 residents. Ballard had 4.568 at the time. Add in other areas, and a population of 90,000 for the area of modern Seattle seems quite conservative.

Now what about finding the old buildings? The King County Assesor has data that includes the address and year of construction of property in Seattle. I grabbed the residential file. (This does miss out on a few older houses that have been converted to commercial.) It includes the entire county. To narrow down to Seattle, a little bit of grep magic by zip code:

cat EXTR_ResBldg.csv|grep -e '98177\|98133\|9810\|98112\|98115\|98116\|98117\|98118\|98119\|98121\|98122\|98125\|98126\|98133\|98134\|98136\|98144\|98154\|98164\|98174\|98195\|98199' >seattle100YearHouses.csv 

That may grab a few bits on the periphery where the zip code spans the city limits, but should be close enough for our purposes. I sorted by year built and then removed everything more than 100 years old.

Interestingly, there was nothing before 1900.

The breakdown by year:

Something seems a little suspicious there. There were more 1900 constructions than 1901 and 1902 combined. Were some houses backdated? Or is there some weird Y2K thing going on?

I loaded those into a Google map and:

Suspiciously, there were none in the downtown area. Perhaps I had a bad filter on the zip codes?

I tried pulling all of King County:

Year	houses	Change vs. previous
1894	1
1900	2112
1901	708	-66%
1902	710	0%
1903	872	23%
1904	1261	45%
1905	1478	17%
1906	2232	51%
1907	1740	-22%
1908	2496	43%
1909	2301	-8%
1910	3277	42%
1911	1811	-45%
1912	1952	8%
1913	1521	-22%
1914	1713	13%
1915	1493	-13%
1916	2001	34%
1917	989	-51%
1918	3138	217%
1919	2140	-32%
1920	2766	29%
1921	1778	-36%
1922	2112	19%
1923	2118	0%
1924	3153	49%
1925	3743	19%
1926	4278	14%
1927	2955	-31%
1928	3669	24%
1929	2327	-37%
1930	2616	12%
1931	1345	-49%
1932	900	-33%
1933	616	-32%
1934	623	1%
1935	727	17%
1936	1244	71%
1937	1685	35%
1938	1674	-1%
1939	2294	37%
1940	3766	64%
1941	4457	18%
1942	6032	35%
1943	3509	-42%
1944	3450	-2%
1945	2211	-36%
1946	3091	40%
1947	6068	96%
1948	5651	-7%
1949	4581	-19%
1950	6134	34%
1951	5239	-15%
1952	5559	6%
1953	5694	2%
1954	7183	26%
1955	7331	2%
1956	4821	-34%
1957	4651	-4%
1958	6144	32%
1959	7806	27%
1960	5624	-28%
1961	6223	11%
1962	8129	31%
1963	6798	-16%
1964	4176	-39%
1965	4969	19%
1966	6738	36%
1967	8929	33%
1968	9619	8%
1969	6368	-34%
1970	3357	-47%
1971	2339	-30%
1972	3743	60%
1973	3530	-6%
1974	3932	11%
1975	4857	24%
1976	6509	34%
1977	9876	52%
1978	9393	-5%
1979	7569	-19%
1980	5774	-24%
1981	5238	-9%
1982	2727	-48%
1983	5231	92%
1984	5780	10%
1985	5148	-11%
1986	5616	9%
1987	7018	25%
1988	6425	-8%
1989	7178	12%
1990	7571	5%
1991	4756	-37%
1992	4929	4%
1993	4531	-8%
1994	5269	16%
1995	4131	-22%
1996	4663	13%
1997	4353	-7%
1998	5453	25%
1999	5419	-1%
2000	4595	-15%
2001	5688	24%
2002	4729	-17%
2003	7468	58%
2004	7516	1%
2005	7684	2%
2006	7347	-4%
2007	6763	-8%
2008	5605	-17%
2009	2950	-47%
2010	2719	-8%
2011	2718	0%
2012	3454	27%
2013	4201	22%
2014	4154	-1%
2015	4310	4%
2016	4893	14%
2017	4922	1%
2018	5245	7%
2019	4691	-11%
2020	4621	-1%
2021	3678	-20%
2022	292	-92%

Commercial buildings were also interesting:

To display on a map, I had to split into "Vashon" and "not Vashon" to get below Google's 2000 limit

year	buildings	% change
1882	1
1883	1
1884	0
1885	0
1886	0
1887	0
1888	0
1889	0
1890	1
1891	0
1892	0
1893	0
1894	0
1895	1
1896	0
1897	0
1898	0
1899	1
1900	407	40600%
1901	108	-73%
1902	77	-29%
1903	58	-25%
1904	102	76%
1905	91	-11%
1906	180	98%
1907	144	-20%
1908	183	27%
1909	201	10%
1910	346	72%
1911	121	-65%
1912	133	10%
1913	101	-24%
1914	125	24%
1915	94	-25%
1916	131	39%
1917	74	-44%
1918	145	96%
1919	107	-26%
1920	267	150%
1921	107	-60%
1922	153	43%
1923	162	6%
1924	213	31%
1925	259	22%
1926	319	23%
1927	226	-29%
1928	346	53%
1929	189	-45%
1930	241	28%
1931	91	-62%
1932	77	-15%
1933	46	-40%
1934	57	24%
1935	65	14%
1936	117	80%
1937	102	-13%
1938	111	9%
1939	93	-16%
1940	220	137%
1941	160	-27%
1942	135	-16%
1943	93	-31%
1944	58	-38%
1945	170	193%
1946	345	103%
1947	323	-6%
1948	344	7%
1949	278	-19%
1950	413	49%
1951	254	-38%
1952	266	5%
1953	276	4%
1954	346	25%
1955	490	42%
1956	404	-18%
1957	494	22%
1958	471	-5%
1959	557	18%
1960	583	5%
1961	394	-32%
1962	585	48%
1963	535	-9%
1964	460	-14%
1965	563	22%
1966	608	8%
1967	729	20%
1968	761	4%
1969	743	-2%
1970	629	-15%
1971	341	-46%
1972	325	-5%
1973	319	-2%
1974	404	27%
1975	489	21%
1976	402	-18%
1977	629	56%
1978	768	22%
1979	966	26%
1980	872	-10%
1981	510	-42%
1982	408	-20%
1983	462	13%
1984	495	7%
1985	655	32%
1986	682	4%
1987	645	-5%
1988	636	-1%
1989	631	-1%
1990	592	-6%
1991	389	-34%
1992	332	-15%
1993	251	-24%
1994	270	8%
1995	317	17%
1996	343	8%
1997	309	-10%
1998	381	23%
1999	481	26%
2000	553	15%
2001	449	-19%
2002	377	-16%
2003	338	-10%
2004	330	-2%
2005	416	26%
2006	371	-11%
2007	463	25%
2008	440	-5%
2009	294	-33%
2010	216	-27%
2011	148	-31%
2012	191	29%
2013	183	-4%
2014	321	75%
2015	299	-7%
2016	335	12%
2017	341	2%
2018	313	-8%
2019	318	2%
2020	219	-31%
2021	189	-14%
2022	8	-96%

Still nothing downtown. Finally after adding in commercial buildings to 1910, I see some things downtown. There is a separate file for apartments that I may try adding in later. 

Old houses end up being where you would expect them to be. Queen Anne. Capital Hill. Ballard. There are also a smattering of other places.

Maybe apartm